This Week’s RRR (Relevant Religious Reference): “Do not
judge your fellow until you have arrived at his/her place” – Hillel
in Ethics of the Fathers (Avos), 2:5
This Week’s SSC (Suitable Secular Citations): “Pay up,
Mortimer…We took a perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned
him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an
honest, hard-working man into a violently... deranged, would-be
killer!” – Randolph Duke, collecting his $1 debt from Brother
Mortimer, as Valentine (Eddie Murphy) listens with wide-eyed shock from
the bathroom stall in TRADING PLACES
THE $1 WAGER
What do you get when Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd become tricked into
trading societal places? Aside from a continual flow of hysterical lines
and classic Eddie Murphy camera-stares, you also end up with fascinating
food-for-thought. In the hilarious comedy “Trading Places”, the $1 wager
of Randolph and Mortimer Duke gives comedic expression to the age-old
debate of nature vs. nurture (see SSC above). In spite of their
opposing opinions on the issue, the Duke Brothers cleverly conspire to
orchestrate a “life swap”, callously switching the environments and
lifestyles of Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy) and Louis Winthorpe III
(Aykroyd). Ultimately, the dastardly Duke duo “succeeds” in
transitioning an underprivileged con-man into an upstanding business
leader while turning an honest executive into a common criminal.
With regard to their bet, which of the Duke Brothers is more in line with
Jewish wisdom – Randolph (on the side of nurture) or Mortimer (on the side
of nature)? To some degree, Judaism would agree with each of the
brothers, asserting that nature and nurture both play a large role in
determining a person’s position in life. But let’s up the ante on
their wager: if nature and nurture forces are so powerful, must we bet
against freewill – a central tenet of Judaism – and concede that there’s
no room for it in the equation of life’s forces?
THE SHIFTING BATTLE-LINE OF CHOICE
There’s no need to concede, as Jewish wisdom resolves this quandary in
quite a beautiful manner. Our sages reveal that each person possesses two
competing drives: a positive drive (which lifts us towards constructive,
meaningful endeavors) and a negative drive (which sucks us into
seemingly “self-serving” yet counter-productive behaviors). The clash
of these drives creates a dramatic tension that allows for the challenge
of choice. Each of us, however, has a unique choice-point – our own inner
battle-line where the freewill struggles are taking place (i.e. where the
competing drives are at equal strength). But our battle-line continually
moves, depending on 1) changing circumstances, and 2) whether our
positive or negative drive has prevailed in the previous battle. Rabbi
Eliayu Dessler compares this phenomenon to a physical battle, paraphrased
as follows:
When two armies are at battle, fighting takes place only at the
battlefront. Territory behind the lines of each army is under that army's
control, so little or no resistance is needed there. If one side gains a
victory at the front and pushes the enemy back, the position of the
battlefront will change. At that point, fighting takes place only at the
new battle-line. We now see how there is always potential for
freewill in the equation: true, our Creator sets the stage for us,
endowing us with “innate influences” and with frequently changing “nurture
influences”, all of which are beyond our control. But wherever those
forces may place us – and in whichever direction our battle might move –
there will always remain a battlefront location where our drives can be at
equal strength.
FREEWILL AND JACOB’S LADDER ♪♫
(INCIDENTALLY, 2 SONG TITLES BY
THE POWER TRIO “RUSH”)
Another vivid metaphor is used to illustrate the shifting battle-line of
choice: the up-and-down movement on a ladder that spans from the earth to
the heavens (as per Jacob’s dream in this week’s Portion). As with the
shifting battle-line, each time we climb to a higher rung on this
ladder of moral mobility, we actually “raise the bar” of our moral
maturity – leaving behind challenges that are now beneath the zone of our
temptation. Conversely, each time we drop to a lower rung, we
enter a zone of lower-level temptations. In doing so, we leave
ourselves vulnerable to the frightening phenomenon of the slippery
slope: before we know it, we might find ourselves three or four rungs
down, engaged in behaviors that were previously unthinkable.
Now let’s run our own quasi “trading places” experiment in the “laboratory
of Jacob’s ladder” (we’ll get back at Randolph and Mortimer
by calling our Jewish “guinea pigs” Dolph and Mordechai).
Dolph is a Jewish thief, who has grown up in a den of thieves –
glorifying “survival of the fittest” and comfortably convinced that
stealing represents acceptable, “way-of-the-world” behavior. Mordechai
comes from a long line of rabbis and lives in a nurturing household:
conducive to moral advancement and spiritual growth. For Dolph, the
notion of “thou shalt not steal” is so foreign that it sounds funny when
he first hears it. In other words, resisting the temptation to steal is
on a rung that is above his battle-line of moral struggles (in fact, one
of his moral struggles is whether or not to shoot someone who catches him
in the act of a robbery). For Mordechai, the temptation to steal flies
way beneath his radar, many rungs down on the ladder of moral mobility.
WHO IS GREATER: THE THIEF OR THE RABBI’S SON?
Now let’s say that Dolph becomes further exposed to ethical ideals,
gradually refining himself to where he consistently resists temptations to
steal. Sure, he still gets into occasional street fights, etc. – but
let’s say that he manages to climb up five rungs from where he
started (which now leaves him five rungs beneath Mordechai). And let’s
say that Mordechai refines his character as well, making strides in his
commitments to Torah study, etc. Sure, he still could pray with more
fervor, and he sometimes looks down on people with lesser knowledge – but
let’s say that he manages to climb up two rungs from where he
started. Question: who is greater in the eyes of G-d? To the naked eye,
Mordechai may compare favorably to Dolph in every measurable barometer of
morality. But from a Divine perspective – at least according to one
formula of calculation – look who did more with what he had! Assume
that an Investor were to give one broker $10,000 and another broker
$110,000; if the first broker returns $60,000 and the second returns
$130,000, which one might the investor be more impressed with?
While I certainly do not presume to understand the infinite intricacies of
Divine calculations, I think that we can arrive at certain conclusions
with conviction: first of all, let us be clear that we should never
despair about where we may be on the ladder. We all have our tailor-
made battle-lines, and the direction we are heading in is far more
important than which rung we currently occupy. Moreover, we can now
heed the words of Hillel with greater appreciation: “Do not judge your
fellow until you have arrived at his/her place!” Not only is judging
someone unfavorably an undesirable, elitist thing to do – but even more,
it doesn’t make sense from a logical perspective. Why? Because
we have never truly arrived at another person’s place – we have never
experienced the precise combination of forces that make up another
person’s battle-lines. While it is reasonable to evaluate and
condemn inappropriate actions, it is unreasonable and illogical to
judge the people behind those actions. May we all climb life’s ladder in
the direction of our positive purpose, and may we judge others favorably
as they attempt to do the same!
Have a Wonderful Shabbos! Love, Jon & The Chevra
Thanks to Cathy & Russ Lyons of Bala Cynwyd, PA for helping to
share the wisdom of the Torah by sponsoring this week’s “Edutainment
Weekly”, in blessed memory of Russ’s Father Julian Lyons. May
their Family be blessed with many brachas & tremendous nachas! For
details on sponsoring an “Edutainment Weekly” article, please email
info@chevra.net and write “please send sponsoring details”.
